dictionary_all_relations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as potential large result sets or performance implications. It merely states the function without detailing side effects, security, or data handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but insufficient. It front-loads the purpose but omits critical details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain return structure, parameter usage, or how it compares to alternatives, leaving the agent with minimal context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (word, language, limit). It does not explain how parameters affect results or provide formatting guidance, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves all edges (every relation type) for a word, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific relations. However, it lacks explicit mention of the source (ConceptNet) and the offline nature, which are hinted but not fully explained.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. The description does not explain scenarios where fetching all relations is preferred over specific types, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.